## Facts

- After a burglary of the home shared by Edwin Marquez and his brother, Carlos Jiminez, Jiminez disarmed one intruder but did not report the gun to police.
- Two days later, Carlos Alicea stood at a bus stop with relatives in Philadelphia when Marquez walked by using a cell phone.
- Witnesses heard Marquez state that the target was present and urge the person on the phone to “hurry up and get there.”
- Marquez followed Alicea into a store, grabbed him, and struggled with him inside and then outside.
- Outside the store, Marquez restrained Alicea in a full-nelson hold, keeping Alicea under his control.
- Jiminez arrived, approached Alicea at close range, and shot him in the chest; after Marquez released Alicea, Jiminez fired additional shots as Alicea stumbled away and after he fell.
- Alicea died shortly after reaching the hospital; autopsy findings included fatal gunshot wounds to vital organs.
- Marquez and Jiminez fled, later traveled to Florida, and were arrested and returned to Pennsylvania.
- A jury convicted Marquez of third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder; he appealed challenging the sufficiency (and also weight) of the evidence, focusing on accomplice and conspirator liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Marquez was guilty of third-degree murder as an accomplice where he did not fire the gun.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove conspiracy to commit murder, including an agreement and shared intent, based largely on circumstantial proof.
3. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania (en banc) affirmed the judgment of sentence.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support third-degree murder under accomplice liability.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support conspiracy to commit murder.
- The court rejected the weight claim, concluding the verdict did not shock the conscience.

## Legal Principles

- Accomplice liability requires proof that, with the intent of facilitating the offense, a defendant aided, agreed to aid, or attempted to aid another in planning or committing it; shared intent may be inferred from conduct before, during, and after the crime.
- Third-degree murder is an unlawful killing with malice; malice may be inferred from circumstances, including participation in a violent attack involving use of a deadly weapon against vital areas.
- Conspiracy requires an agreement to commit or aid an unlawful act, shared criminal intent, and an overt act; the agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including coordinated actions and flight.
- Direct proof of an express agreement is unnecessary where the factfinder can infer coordinated action and shared intent from the parties’ behavior and the sequence of events.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the jury could infer an agreement and shared malice from Marquez’s call summoning assistance, his restraint of the victim at the moment his brother arrived and fired, the continued close-range shooting, and the brothers’ joint flight, making the evidence sufficient for both accomplice third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.


Commonwealth v. Marquez, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (en banc)